One vote per day, please
Isaiah 7:14
Is Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah (or Christ)? Or is it a prophecy about more immediate events?
Isaiah gave this prophecy to Ahaz, king of Judah, when Jerusalem was under attack by the country of Aram allied with the northern country of Israel. Isaiah went out with his son Shear-Jashub to meet Ahaz and told him that the attack would not succeed and that within sixty-five years the land of the attacking kings will be laid waste. See Isaiah 7:1-9. Then Isaiah 7:10 continues with the prophecy about a child to be born as a sign. Let me quote those verses here. The Hebrew word for "you" distinguishes between addressing a singular person and a plural use that addresses many people. Likewise Hebrew verbs can distinguish between a singular person doing it and many people doing it. I will add (s.) for the singular use of a word, and I will add (pl.) for a plural use of a word.
Isaiah 7:10-16:
Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask (s.) the LORD your (s.) God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."
But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."
Then he said, "Hear (pl) now, you (pl.) house of David! Is it not enough for you (pl.) to try the patience of men? For you (pl.) try the patience of my God also. Therefore the Lord himself will give you (pl.) a sign: behold, the young woman (or virgin) has conceived and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (God is with us). He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste..."Taking the verses at face value, Isaiah is announcing this sign specifically to the house of David, saying, "Hear now, you house of David..." The sign was to be given to the entire house of David, plural, and not necessarily for the benefit of only one person such a Ahaz. The sign was to be given to the house of David because the house of David (the succession of kings) were starting to trouble even God: "For you (house of David) try the patience of my God also". And God is giving this sign as an answer to the troublesome nature of these successive kings: "Therefore..." is the word Isaiah used. The sign was to be a supernatural work of God. For it does not say that this sign will merely come to pass at some time. But it says that "the Lord Himself will give you a sign", and it was to be from "the deepest depths or in the highest heights". So whatever the sign, we should not expect it to come about in a usual fashion. The sign that God would give would be a son conceived in a supernatural fashion who would be called "With us (is) God", or "God with us" (Immanuel). And this child would reject evil and choose good while he was still so young that he was eating curds and honey (not solid food), which is in contrast to the troublesome nature to the succession of kings from the house of David that tried the patience of God. So yes, I think these verses do speak of a messianic theme of a son to be born to the house of David who would be unusually wise and righteous even at a young age. Furthermore, Isaiah must have been talking about a long awaited hope that would one day be fulfilled (which is the messianic theme) because the prophecy speaks of its own fulfillment in the distant future after Ephirim and Israel would be exiled which could be as much as sixty-five years in the future according to Isaiah 7:8.
Some, however, say that the prophecy of the son to be born was of a sign for king Ahaz that his enemies would soon be destroyed. They say that Isaiah was addressing only king Ahaz about the immediate future. But Isaiah makes a distinction between addressing the king in the singular in verse 7:10-11 and addressing the whole house of David in the plural in verses 7:13-14. And they have not proven that it was a tradition to personally address the king in the plural. Nevertheless, some say that the child was a sign to the king about his immediate enemies. But Isaiah 7:16 states that the land of the two attacking kings would be destroyed BEFORE the boy knew good from evil. So how can the child who does something afterwards be a sign of something before? And furthermore, Isaiah 7:8 indicates that it might takes as long as 65 years before the enemy would be destroyed. This would suggest that the fulfillment is further into the future. But a son born to the house of David who knows good from evil before eating solid foods would be a sign to the house of David that the day will come when the house of David will no longer try the patience of God.
Yet some insist that Immanuel is Isaiah's son. To support their claim they use Isaiah 8:18, "See, I and the sons whom the LORD has given me are to be signs and portents in Israel." And since the son announced in Isaiah 7:14 was also to be a sign means that he was referring to his own son since all his sons were signs. However, just because all of Isaiah's sons were signs does not mean all signs were Isaiah's sons. Since Isaiah includes himself as a sign in verse 8:18 means that not all signs are Isaiah's sons.
The only sons specifically mentioned are Shear-jashub whom Isaiah brought with him to meet the king (See Isaiah 7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz whom Isaiah named before his birth (See Isaiah 8:3). In fact since Isaiah's wife was pregnant with Maher-shalal-hash-baz about the same time, she could not have been pregnant with Immanuel. So such a claim would have to invent another wife for Isaiah which the text does not mention.
Besides, Isaiah indicates that this is an all encompassing prophetic sign and did not just concern the moment (though it may have had momentary import as well). For the sign is from the LORD be it made as deep as sheol or be it made as high as heaven. And a woman having a ordinary baby in the usual way is certainly not a sign from the farthest reaches. And furthermore, the sign was to be given by the Lord Himself. So if the son to be born was the offspring of man, then how could it have be from God Himself?
The supernatural nature of the child's birth along with the name Immanuel (God with us) and the young age of knowing good from evil seems to be consistent with a messianic theme. But others would say that the name does not indicate the person's nature because many Hebrew names incorporate the name of God in them.
Also, they do not think that the phrase "he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" is a comment on his unusual righteousness. Some believe that this is a legal term which refers to the age at which young people are then accountable for their actions - 13 years old for boys, 12 years old for girls. In modern times, this is referred to as Bar mitzvah. But I've been told that this tradition originated in the 19th century and it may have had some recognition in the life of Jesus. But Isaiah lived 700 years earlier, and there does not seem to be any mention of this tradition in the Old Testament. In Genisis 1:9, 3:5, 3:22, and Deuteronomy 1:39 there is the phrase "know good and evil", but Isaiah seems to emphasize the moral superiority of choosing the good and rejecting the wrong.
One vote per day, please